It has been clear for some time that the business of insurance is vitally important to the underpinnings of our national economy and should receive proper consideration at the Federal level.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for holding this important hearing.

If we are serious about truly ending racial profiling, we need to back up our lawsuits with actions that protect families and citizens and children and uphold our Constitution.

This country is not ultimately going to be measured by how many millionaires we lend money to.

People ask me, 'Why is it that people who make over $1 million a year get all of the breaks?'

I would think that would probably be a wise choice of the dollars, given that you are decreasing the amount of money that you are targeting to counseling.

you are going to come into money, especially $1 billion, that you would spend less money on counseling when people will probably need it?

However, I looked through the Administration's proposed budget, and there are a few points that do concern me.

given inflation and given the higher cost and the higher demand, and the fact that 140,000 people go unserved, that you would reduce that part of the budget.

I am very pleased that while remaining fiscally responsible, the Administration has been able to increase HUD's overall budget by $1.4 billion.

But people want to know why is it that people who make over $1 million a year can't pay a little bit more...

I have never had anybody approach me about overspending on poor people.

you can't go to the government when you get in trouble, have the government bail you out...

They are obstructionist, and the American people have had enough of it.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they continue to insist that Washington doesn't have the answers, that the answers really are at the local level.

This has a profound effect on housing equality and affordability for millions of families across the country.

And I cannot emphasize this piece enough: It requires the registration of political intelligence firms, similar to what is required by lobbyists.

This has made the public rightly question the adequacy of the rules that we have today.

I sincerely do believe that a vast number of Members of Congress and their staffs serve the best interests only of their constituents and the public, and they do not come here, obviously, to line their pockets.

How can we possibly allow that to continue?

These firms are not influencing Congress but, rather, using Congressional information to influence their clients' stock portfolios.

It is very important that we honor the trust that the American people placed in Members of Congress, and the STOCK Act would bar Members of Congress and Federal employees from profiting from information that is not publicly available that…

This bill is not about individuals; it is about reforming the institution as a whole.

The STOCK Act requires the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and House Ethics to explicitly ban such trading and provides two new enforcement rules.